HVD: My point is not that the pro-Palestinians had no right to turn up today and protest. Of course they did. People have a right to protest whenever they want so I could have gone to one of their demonstrations to try and ruin it but I would never even think about doing that. The point I am making is: that they should have turned up today is reflective of their beliefs. (when I say ‘they’ I do not mean Muslims, I mean pro-Palestinians intent on ruining other people’s day). I respected their right to protest and didn’t try to sabotage it. A small group of them today (there were only 300 of them) decided to turn up and use fucking loud hailers whilst the chief-Rabbi was talking and whilst we were singing the Israeli and the British national anthems. How fucking disgraceful!!! They showed absolutely no respect. There was another counter-protest there that I do have respect for. They were protesting quietly with banners making their position clear. They were Jews who wanted to end the occupation (as I do) and who think that Sharon is a muppet (as I do). There were also non-Jews in that group but most of them were Jewish. I entirely respect all of those there because they conducted themselves in the correct manner. Did they try to ruin the rally? No - they showd respect, unlike the 300 rude bastards who think that you’re clever if you’re loud.
Pangloss: The fact that this wasn’t the case (and I knew it wouldn’t be beforehand) almost stopped me from going. However it was a pro-peace rally, there were Christians there and there was nothing stopping Muslims from attending it to. If there was a rally which was specifically organised to have Jews and Muslims marching together then I would be at the front with the hugest loudhailer you’ve ever seen singing “SALAM” but I can’t envisage that, much as I’d love to be able to. The point you made though did not stop me from going because I support Israel although not necessarily what is currently happenning out there. I would attend any pro-peace rally. If you then ask me why I didn’t go to the pro-Palestinian rally, my answer would be because their banners read, “Jihad: the way for liberation” “Israel the illegitimate child of the British” and “Love for Islam, Live for Islam Die for Islam.” I did not see one poster today that supported violence or was offensive to the other side.
Alex, I understand much of what you are saying, but this post is uncharacteristically one-sided.
Do you not think Palestinians and their supporters would have been offended by Netanyahu’s speech, which demonstrated that he thought “you’re clever if you’re loud”, and “showed absolutely no respect” for his opponents? He said that any truly free Palestinian state would “inevitably become the biggest terrorist state in the world.” And he said it very loudly. Is this not some sort of assertion of a Palestinian genetic predisposition to terrorism? Also, it’s simply not true. Firstly, granting them a viable state and the ‘right to return’ to their homeland removes all “justifications” which may be used for terror tactics, and makes it much harder to recruit fresh blood - dissatisfaction breeds new terrorists, while the stability of a viable state will put an end to the flood of Palestinian youths willing to ‘sacrifice’ themselves for what they see as a legitimate cause (this is where they are crucially mistaken, but try telling them that in the luxurious conditions of a West Bank refugee camp).
Furthermore, the plight of their “Palestinian brethren” is the reason Osama and his homeboys give for their despicable activities. I believe an agreement of mutual concession and benefit between Israel and Palestine would see the end of the biggest single ‘justification’ of terrorism today. It would be naieve to say that this would lead to the end of Islamic fundamentalism, but it would certainly halt its wild spread and also, if fundamentalists continue with terrorism even after Palestinians are given a fair deal, the rest of the world need feel no moral concern in moving in swiftly to shut down terrorist networks which simply have no reason to exist other than a desire to harm innocent people.
So an agreement would have massive benefits for the entire international community. Why are they not able to reach one? It is as you often say, a mutual lack of empathy. To the Israelis nothing could be worse than random suicide bombers mercilessly killing innocents, and to Palestinians nothing could be worse than getting kicked out of your country, refused a right to return despite UN recommendations and then getting accused of being a nation of terrorists. And both parties are right. This is the problem; a progressive circle of violence has escalated (much like a Keynesian multiplier) to the point where no side wants to be first to back down. Israel continue their offensive with US sponsored weaponry, and Palestine use terror (which may well be Arafat endorsed, if Alex’s sources are right) because, to be frank, it’s all they can afford. The western world is biased in favour of Israel (on a government level), and the Arab world is in favour of Palestine. Where do we go from here?
Oh and Alex, I like the idea of:
I’d be there with you, bruv, but I doubt whether you and me poncing around London singing “HELLO” in Arabic through a loudhailer would really achieve anything. And remember: being LOUD is not clever.
Over recent months I have come noticeably more pro-Israeli leading to what you regard as “one-sided” posts such as my last one. Before the events of this intifada, my views were in a way more liberal although they are still liberal now. I still recognise that no side is to blame (or rather that both sides are to blame), I still recognise that Israel has committed crimes as the Palestinians have done. I have never thought that one can criticise Israel more because more Palestinians have died over the last months than Israelis - this has just been the result of the fact that the Israeli army is stronger than the Palestinian guerilla ‘army’.
Onto the rally…Maybe they were offended by what Nettanyahu was saying (I myself think that he is a provocative speaker) but I believe that it was direspectful on their behalf to be there. That’s all I’m saying. Their behaviour was provocative. I did not in the past complain that what they say in their rallies is provocative - let them say what they want at their rallies (Just like Nettanyahu could speak as he wished when addressing Jewish people).
What you say here is entirely true:
but I don’t think it needs to be followed by a “But”. Whether they had international support or not they would still receive some support. You seem to think that they are only freedom-fighters. I don’t have a problem with them being labelled freedom-fighters but they are NOT JUST freedom fighters. Every deal regarding a conclusive settlement of the land issue that has been offered has been denied. Why? Because they don’t want the Jewish State to exist. They (and this is the terrorists that I am reffering to, not all Palestinians) want the whole of Israel. When they speak of “occupied territories,” they do not mean the Gaza Strip and West Bank, they mean Israel. When they are given a homeland, the terrorism will not end and it will still be supported from much of the Muslim world. Also Osama doesn’t give a flying fuck for the fate of his Palestinian ‘brothers’ - he is simply latching onto a cause to try to give some political weight to his abhorred behaviour. To give an example of what I have been writing about. After Algeria achieved independence, the freedom fighters then directed their violence elsewhere. They did not continue the terror against the French because their hatred of the French was only born out of historical reasons. Has their history become any less violent since they achieved independence? No, probably more so. The situation will be worse for the Palestinians because their terror tactics are born out of more than a desire for a homeland.
Finally, “Salam” is a peace song with lyrics in both Hebrew and Arabic - quality.
A lot has been made of the fact that Barak offered Arafat the vast majority of the land he wanted, and yet the offer was rejected. the fact that it was rejected is not that he wants to destroy Israel (he might actually, but bear with me) The offer given to him was three pockets of land, surrounded by israeli territory. This would have led to Palastine hiving no continuous border. Do you really think he would accept a state like that, where to get from one end to the other you would have to cross israeli territory twice? No. And neither would you.
O wise HVD, with your sacred apple or whatever it may be, what is your answer? What do you expect to be given? Maybe the British shouldn’t have made the mistake of giving Palestinian (achem…sorry it wasn’t Palestinian at all was it) land to the Jews. Maybe they shouldn’t have ‘stolen’ the land from the Ottomans, why don’t we just blame the British? The fact is that the land was given to the Jews (dipomatic disaster as it may be seen to be in hindsight) and so now we have to make the best of a bad situation. Israel will make concessions, do you think they want their State reduced to that of a ghost town where literally no one goes out for fear of their lives? But the Pelestinians must make concession too. Hiren what sort of a state do you suggest should be given?
Alex, perhaps I did not emphasise my point clearly enough. I am talking of the Palestinian terrorists in terms of freedom fighters not because this is what I believe them to be, but because this is what they believe themselves to be. Whatever anyone says, these are real people, with genuine emotions and moral concerns. However, they can easily be brainwashed by those with the wherewithal into believing wholeheartedly that the terrorist approach is righteous (in spite of it being hugely unIslamic) as long as they are denied the right to return to their homeland. If this incentive is removed they will no longer be able to justify their activities to themselves, so we ought to see an end to suicide bombs etc. You say that they are so fundamentally anti-Zionist that they refuse to end the onslaught, having rejected all settlements offered to them - but Hiren deals with this point (far more economically than I would be able to), highlighting the fact that the deals have not been all peaches and cream. I genuinely believe that a fairer arrangement will bring some semblance of peace to the region in time; call me naieve if you will (I’m inviting an abusive response, aren’t I?).
Now for the Osama question. You said - with a sense of jubilance that belies the fact that this is exactly what I said (buried somewhere in the endless reams) - that he uses the “brethren argument” as a smokescreen for a darker political goal (world domination?). You are right. My point is that the elimination of the spurious Palestinian ‘justification’ leaves the rest of the world in no doubt that he must be stopped. Although the dove-like Bush and butt-kiss Blair have launched an anti-terrorist offensive in response to 09/11, other countries, Japan and several EU states declined to add their support to the campaign, feeling slightly uneasy about the moral argument against. If, in a post Palestine problem world, OBL continued a campaign of terror, the entire international community would know that it signals some scary masterplan, and at least in theory, ought to move in to destroy his network in an all-out, coordinated operation. OBL vs. the (entire) world - who would you put your money on?
all i ahve to say is that i thank god im a nihilist and dont give 2 hoots about any of it =) perhaps i should be thankful that i dont got people shottin through my walls and blowin up the places i visit, but weather im thankful or not, its how it is =) and in 10 years ill be a ninja, and ill be able ot chop down anyone who tries to pull that kinda stuff on me.
If you don’t, well…get it!